[b]inu-liger wrote: [/b] Anyways getting back to the issue of copyrights and selling MP3's, here's an interesting article I found about a federal ruling made last year in the U.S. that I was completely unaware of until now:
[b]The Inquisitr wrote:[/b] According to a federal judge, MP3 files are legal to sell [b]if the person selling them, bought them[/b]. This is after Capitol Records wanted to shut down a used MP3 store which the record company deemed not legal to do.[/QUOTE]
I think it can be said with certainty, and with backing from JSS' statements on the matter, that Fuller did [b]not[/b] pay for nearly all the files he was offering on his list. And this was definitely grounds enough to get his page shut down for that reason as quoted above.
Sure helps when people do their research sometimes, eh? ;-)[/QUOTE]
Yeah you would definitely be the first person I would turn to for advice if I had any legal issues to deal with.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
As for the legal/illegal thing, pull your troosers up...
Holly; I know you are not female. Likewise you know I don't wear troosers. We Highlander's are made of far sterner stuff!
PS: I think a lot is about to kick off pretty soon - so your wish to keep it all on Queenzone may just come to pass![/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Scottish people wear troosers or breeches and sit on an upturned bucket instead of a chair. According to "Oor Wullie" anyway ...
[QUOTE] [b]inu-liger wrote:[/b]
Anyways getting back to the issue of copyrights and selling MP3's, here's an interesting article I found about a federal ruling made last year in the U.S. that I was completely unaware of until now:
http://www.inquisitr.com/191781/used-mp3-music-files-legal-to-sell-says-federal-judge/
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Inquisitr wrote:[/QUOTENAME]
According to a federal judge, MP3 files are legal to sell if the person selling them, bought them. This is after Capitol Records wanted to shut down a used MP3 store which the record company deemed not legal to do.[/QUOTE]
I think it can be said with certainty, and with backing from JSS' statements on the matter, that Fuller did not pay for nearly all the files he was offering on his list. And this was definitely grounds enough to get his page shut down for that reason as quoted above.
Sure helps when people do their research sometimes, eh? ;-)[/QUOTE]
Doesn't take a crack copyright lawyer to see that that ruling has virtually nothing to do with Fuller's situation.
Beyond that, let's remind everybody that the lesson from a year ago was that nobody can state with even reasonable confidence the full circumstances under which David got any of the material he ultimately releases, let alone with "certainty backed by JSS". A bunch of enraged collectors who can't countenance independent thought upsetting their apple cart saying "everybody knows" is no substitute for an actual argument, let alone proof. David has said in the past that he has never made anything available publicly that he got exclusively from the Fanthology group. I don't know if that remains true or if it ever was, but the very sporadic nature of his releases certainly does not rule it out. Fuller has been privately trading for years and anybody that claims to know definitively what he got when from anybody who is not them is on the thinnest ice and bears a separate and substantial burden of proof for each track. As I recall there was only one track that David put out for which there was a claim that it was previously uncirculated, and that assertion was made at the time Fuller was kicked out of Fanthology. Fuller denied it and was invited back, so none of it is terribly clear. Self serving opinions, particularly from people who have demonstrated near zero ability to be objective about David, are not definitive knowledge.
GratefulFan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]John S Stuart wrote:[/b]
Elitism? Powerhouses? All bull-sh*t terms for those who will not get off their ars*s and expect the world to hand them everything freely on a plate. "For he who works hard - thus cometh his reward!"
(Does anyone else remember the Disney Cartoon "The World owes me a Living"?)
[/QUOTE]
Mmmm hmmm. The bottom line is that a bunch of jackals are falling on a private collector because on assessment and reflection and in noting that it's not 1972 anymore, that collector wants to essentially make some things available to the wider community. In the art world if somebody wants to donate something they have hanging on their wall to a museum, they just do it. If he's received something in a private trade it's reasonable to note that he can ultimately do whatever the hell he likes with it. You hate it when it's free and you hate it when it's not, and your scare tactics are the same in either case. I think last time it was boogeyman nightmare tales of the RIAA's imminent sweep up of David for the Taylor track. Truthfully it's either none of your business and irrelevant to you what risks David wants to take on in the copyright world, or in the general best interest to discourage Alberta Urkel from his prissy emailing. Beyond that the legal pontificating seems to serve little purpose.
Saint Jiub · Member since
Some things never change ...
Just like 10 years ago, whenever something is leaked and the "honor amongst thieves" code is breached, the collectors update their blacklist and mobilize their army of character assassins.
After all his whining about Canadian bullies and his depression, I hope that Urkel does not abandon his daughter in response to being called out for his "holier than thou" postering and snitch bullying of David Fuller.
So what if Fuller is earning beer money by selling bootlegs? He is providing a service that is not available from collectors or QPL. Evidently it ok for a collector to obtain a convention recording (like "Smile"), but not ok for it to be made available to the ordinary commoners.
What is the difference between a collector and David Fuller? A collector is a high priced escort, while David is just a common whore.
TomP63 · Member since
With great interest I have followed this discussion about the intent of illegal or legal. If I may let me add something to this topic. On the first day Queen had entered The Netherlands I was struck and I became a follower since 1974. Yeah, I am that pretty old. In the haydays of bootlegging it was in those days very hard to get a hand on a Queen bootleg, most of those bootlegs were copies of copies. It took a long while before the really interessting bootlegs "flooded the market". In those days, remember I'm still old, I was a true collector of Queen bootlegs, I had my fair share in double copies, as I was under the impression that I had something new and scarce in my hands. But now the illegal part or the legal part. In those days I made several copies for my new gain Queen friends, copies on cassette. I've swapped over the years many cassette's and in the time the silver discs made it's appearance I had also my fair share of buying and swapping discs. I went to records fairs and bought several bootlegs, crappy ones, good ones, I my local record store I could buy Queen bootlegs, not only Queen bootlegs, several artist had bootlegs. I bought them not form under the counter, they were wideley available in the Queen section! No gentleman agreement there. Bootlegs were higher in prize than regular CD's, but I did not care, I was on the prowl for concerts and so. Was I in those days handeling illegal practice by buying bootlegs in a recordstore, was I doing illegal practice by swapping tapes or discs? I believe not, why not, because I have paid for it, yes it remains a thin line.
The thing is, I those days I thought that Queen or the management would put a stop to all the live recording, but they never did, there were plenty chances to shoot under the wings of the bootleggers by releasing some decent live material. The only thing Queen came up was with an incomplete Live killers album. Which feulled the bootleggers even more. I've seen bootlegs with stunning artwork, booklets, but that aside. But remember, amongst the collectors of Queen stuff, Brian is the biggest of us all. So he can know what is outthere.
Now with the studio recordings, I won't sell my stuff which still remains unreleased, because I think that it is not for me to make any money out of my stuff, although I still regard it as my collection. But I still can not believe that Queen or QPL in that matter have put a stop to some "collectors", I mean, they could outhwith the so-called traders by releasing some regular stuff. I'm reffering to a two disc set of all the extended versions. I do believe that the diehard, collectors or whatever Queen fans like to call themselves will buy the set, reason being, it is the first time it is all being released, it will replace the discs the bootleggers have made over the years and there is an end of illegal stuff flooding the market. Of course it will never make an end on the download. As for David Fuller, well I never get his intention, but I get the intention of some people to feel the least let down by him.
Please don't get me wrong, I was not judging anybody or somebody, but in my honest opinion I do believe that is Queen or QPL who have the abillity to put an end on blokes as David Fuller, to name one. But if Brian or Roger say no to put the extended versions as extra on the Hot Space release, don't scream your head of that it is circulating amongst collectors........
Tom
Pim Derks · Member since
I seriously doubt a few people on Queenzone hearing an unreleased Roger Taylor track would set alarmbells of at the Queen HQ. I can understand they get pissed off when multitracks or officially released stuff leaks/shared, but an unreleased piano outtake of Freddie making up lyrics or a low-quality recording of an instrumental 1998 Brian May b-side, who cares? It's not like there's a potential number 1 song among the stuff which has surfaced so far. And I agree with Tom, it would be easy for QP to put together an "The Early Years" 4-CD set compiling all the Smile, Opposition, 1984, Ibex, Wreckage and pre-first Queen album stuff. But they just don't care enough to put something out which doesn't include Rock You, Champions or Ga Ga.
. · Member since
To be honest, I can't see the problem with multi tracks. Who would want them anyway, other than the die hards?
Needless to say I have them, but for my own private use and not to be shared in public of course. Having said that I sometimes let some close friends listen to them.
Please let me know if I'm talking bollox.
mooghead · Member since
I do drumless/bassless/guitarless versions for friends that play music, I charge them 10 pounds for each track.
Lie.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]
To be honest, I can't see the problem with multi tracks. Who would want them anyway, other than the die hards?
[/QUOTE]
Anyone who has a digital audio workstation.
i.e. just about anyone over the age of 14 these days.
These songs can now be sampled by anyone, and the possibilities for remixes are literally endless. Some people like the idea (Trent Reznor) but others would liken it to the end times (Prince).
John S Stuart · Member since
Ah my good friend GratefulFan; I wondered when you would arrive.
The problem with all of your hypothetical situations and arguments are - they can only be resolved with a hypothetical solution. As these imaginary situations depend upon theoretical answers - neither the question, argument or solution hold any validity; and in sum are a waste of time and do not deserve the time devoted to such frivolous pursuits.
Now before you go off and re-write [i]"Twelve Angry Men";[/i] lets deal in some absolutes:
Mr Fuller runs a YouTube channel of [i]his[/i] [i]own free will and choice[/i]. What [i]he[/i] decides to distribute, broadcast, disseminate, publish or circulate there from - is again of [i]his own free will and choice[/i]. On that channel he distributes both material which can be bought from both the internet and most good record stores, along with material unpublished elsewhere.
Whether Mr. Fuller has received these tracks from me, you, Greg Brooks, or even Roger Taylor himself - signed in Roger's own blood - in triplicate - and with his blessing - is (as you know) an academic red herring. [b]It is still illegal for him to do so[/b] (upload and broadcast that is), and as such, sooner or later will face the wrath of the RIAA. (And that is just the American arm of copyright law).
Please read the following story (I hope you are reading this too David): "Woman to Pay RIAA $220,000 For 24 Downloaded Songs"
Let me rephrase that - a fine of almost one-quarter of one million US dollars for [i][b]downloading[/b][/i]! It therefore begs the question what would the [b][i]uploading[/i][/b] of a whole station of YouTube tracks be worth?
This thread is not about me; or other die hard collectors. This thread is not about whether Mr. Fuller ripped off the Fanthology or not, or whether his material was accrued elsewhere; again all academic and semantics. There are a thousand and one (perhaps two) sleight of hand ways to change and misdirect this thread but let's stick to the ONE key point here.
This thread is about owning the LEGAL rights to freely distribute material that belongs to others - and to do so otherwise my dear (un)grateful fan is [b]ILLEGAL and indefensable.[/b] End of argument, full stop.
Now then; does the RIAA know about Mr. Fuller and his activities; [b]Yes - indeed they do![/b] Well they sure do now - and they are indeed gunning after him. (Perhaps not a good choice of wording in the wake of the recent US NRA controversies - but you get the point).
(Oh I am not that mean; I did not report him); but David has received dozens of complaints regarding his "Copyright of David Fuller" stunt - which in turn has drawn even more attention to the RIAA of his illegal activities. (The sqeakiest trolley demands the most attention and all that). The next steps are out of my hands, your hands, Roger Taylor's hands, Queen's hands, Queenzone hands, and all squarely return to the feet (I love mixed metaphors) of David Fuller himself.
Now why not put that obviously great but bored mind of yours into his legal defence team. [b]From where I am sitting - he is in desperate need of one.
And he has no one to blame but his own stupidity, greed, and lust for attention.
That is the "real" story: The remainder is just out of context framework.[/b]
brENsKi · Member since
john, her fine WAS for SHARING. that's the thing the RIAA are really interested in
so you got you answer 24 shared tracks = $220,000, therefore DF must be looking at something in the region of $100,000
John S Stuart · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] john, her fine WAS for SHARING. that's the thing the RIAA are really interested in so you got you answer 24 shared tracks = $220,000, therefore DF must be looking at something in the region of $100,000[/QUOTE] No: His fine would be mutiplied by [b]all[/b] the tracks he shares: not just one or two; and as we have seen, that can run into [b]millions[/b] of dollars in the US alone.
John S Stuart · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
As for the legal/illegal thing, pull your troosers up...
Holly; I know you are not female. Likewise you know I don't wear troosers. We Highlander's are made of far sterner stuff!
PS: I think a lot is about to kick off pretty soon - so your wish to keep it all on Queenzone may just come to pass![/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Scottish people wear troosers or breeches and sit on an upturned bucket instead of a chair. According to "Oor Wullie" anyway ...
My long lost school photo - where did you get that from!
Queen fan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]John S Stuart wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] john, her fine WAS for SHARING. that's the thing the RIAA are really interested in
so you got you answer 24 shared tracks = $220,000, therefore DF must be looking at something in the region of $100,000[/QUOTE]
No: His fine would be mutiplied by [b]all[/b] the tracks he shares: not just one or two; and as we have seen, that can run into [b]millions[/b] of dollars in the US alone.[/QUOTE]
Peter Freestone said on his blog that Freddie never recorded any of the phantom of the opera stuff, it was a rumour that was not true.
